The President’s Thin Moral Line June 24, 2007
Posted by Paul Edwards in Bush, Politics, amnesty, illegal immigration.trackback
President Bush this week vetoed S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. This is only the third time during the 6 1/2 years of his presidency that Bush has used his veto authority (one of the previous two times he vetoed a similar bill).
In his letter to the Senate explaining his actions, President Bush said, “Once again, the Congress has sent me legislation that would compel American taxpayers, for the first time in our history, to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos.” The President also explained his veto to invited guests in the East Room of the White House on the day of the veto. To those gathered in the East Room, distinguished guests among them including science professors, medical doctors, and members of Congress, he said, “If this legislation became law, it would compel American taxpayers — for the first time in our history — to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos. I made it clear to Congress and to the American people that I will not allow our nation to cross this moral line.”
While I applaud the President’s courage in vetoing this legislation when so many voices are calling for its implementation, and while I support the President’s uncompromising stand for life, the President’s moral line is a thin one.
There is another bill pending before Congress that also asks the American people to cross a moral line. This bill, The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Commission Act of 2007 (H.R. 572, S. 9), has the full support of President Bush and many Republican members of Congress. Yet this bill, if allowed to become law, also asks the American people to cross a moral line by mocking the immigration laws already on the books and granting amnesty to as many as twenty million men and women who are currently residing, and many of them working, in the United States illegally.
Laws do not create morality—they are informed by our moral code and become the guardians of morality. If the President truly believes there is a moral line of demarcation which cannot under any circumstances be crossed, he must admit that line extends beyond the culture of life issues. This moral line informs all of our laws. This moral line is what makes us a nation of laws in the first place. Without this moral line, America would be ruled by anarchy, because there would be no basis upon which any of us should be compelled to obey the law.
There is no arguing the fact that the United States needs comprehensive immigration reform. But by supporting this particular version of reform, President Bush is asking the American people to cross a moral line. He is asking us to excuse up to twenty million people who entered this country illegally, many of whom are working in this country illegally.
If it is crossing the line to deliberately destroy human life in the hopes of saving human life, it is also crossing the line to excuse—without real penalty—those who have knowingly broken the law in the hopes that they will obey our laws in the future. Not only is such a policy morally ambiguous, it puts too much faith in fallen human nature. What results is a total disregard for the moral line that gives weight to our rule of law in the first place.
ooooo … the scary word: amnesty. As defined by Webster: “the act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals”
It seems to me God gave us amnesty too
Fact #1 There are at least 12 millions illegal immigrants in our country.
Fact #2 There are laws that should prevent this from happening, but they are not enforced.
The main problem I have with this bill is that it makes the path to citizenship easier for people that have been broken the law longer.
Another problem: I am all for LEX REX, but what is the point of having good laws and not be enforced. We need a realistic solution here. We can have a new law tomorrow and ask all the illegal immigrants to return to their countries, but if it’s not enforced, what is the point? So, while this proposal might not be what we want, the fact remains that we need a solution. And so far, I only hear people complaining without offering an alternative.
Benjamin,
My colleague Hugh Hewitt has offered several alternatives which now have the attention of some Senators. See the story here:
http://www.townhall.com/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ContentGuid=7d4f083b-8c12-4e25-b23b-7ec20b522acd
I’m not for settling for a piece of legislation that is bad law simply because it’s better than nothing. An open debate about the problem of illegal immigration is now underway. Alternative solutions will result from this debate. Hopefully the Senate will consider them.
Ben
Good summation. We do indeed need a “realistic solution.” I recently read that if left unattended, the current flow of immigrants from south of the USA, could result in a minority voting block by the year 2040. This could alter our blessed country as never before. The other side of this issue is that should the alternate offered solutions be implemented, the local economic fallout in the south would be devastating. In my state, North Carolina, the Spanish population spends 25 billion dollars annually, over 40% of them have home mortgages, and from a employer’s point of view, these people work harder with less griping, and are willing to go the extra mile, wherein many of us Americans have gotten soft. Our fathers and grandfathers worked hard and long hours. They did what was necessary for their families. In this arena, they have some of the same work ethics as do much of these people. Does this excuse the lawlessness? Of coarse not. I would suggest that at a bare minimum we shut off the flow. What to do with those, that we as a country, have almost endorsed, is where the real problem lies.
Paul
If the thoughts, and travelings, and even the exact street of residency, was decreed by God, from the foundation of the world, What’s the stink? They must be here by God’s direction and plan, for his purpose.
As for President Bush, and the thin line he walks, I see a great difference between the life of an embryo, whom God knew prior to conception, and the illegal migration of a people, who try to better themselves and provide for their families. In the first, I see murder, in the latter, I see a fathers love for his family.
The problem is complex, but I choose to garnish the solution with some grace.
Paul,
I totally agree with you: settling for a bad law because it’s better than nothing it’s not a solution. However, at least the subject is now open for debate. We can’t ignore the problem forever and pretend everything is fine. We better do something.
All I am asking for is for someone to come up with a solution. Even bad proposals can lead to a solution. We need to bring all the ideas together and solve it.
Now, you said that Hugh Hewitt had some ideas. Where can I find more about his ideas? The only idea I saw in that article is to make sure that we treat different illegal immigrants from different countries (for security purposes).
But, the most important question can be narrowed it down to this: What should we do about the over 12 millions illegal immigrants?
Solution #1 Send them all home.
Solution #2 Allow them to stay here, but make their road to citizenship hard.
Solution #3 Allow them to stay, and make their road to citizenship relatively easy.
The way I see it, when people look at this bill they see it as Sol #3.
Which one do you think is the right one?I tend to believe that Solution #2 would be the right one. Of course, once we decide on this, there are other problems: would they have to pay fines? go to jail? and so on…
What I notice, however, is that we(US citizens) don’t even agree on this general solution. It is hard then to move on with a viable solution.
Don,
You’re right, the majority of illegal immigrant are hard working people. And yes, they are trying to help their families. They also help and hurt US economy at the same time. But the fact remains that they broke the law. And this is not one of the laws (ex.racial discriminating laws) that we can claim like Augustine and Martin Luther King “an unjust law is no law at all”.
The problem started with the borders. With safe borders we wouldn’t be in the mess we are now. So, any solution will have to include a safer border.
Here’s a summary of Hugh Hewitt’s suggestions for Immigration reform taken from the website of Salem Radio’s host in LA, Frank Pastore (http://www.frankpastore.com):
What Need To Be In The Next Immigration Bill
1. Secure The Border – Build the Fence, all 854 miles of it. Double the number of border agents, and back them up with 10,000 National Guard.
2. All illegals, family members and children too, must register with DHS at a post office for a tamper-proof ID Card that allows them to work temporarily. It will be a felony for not registering by a certain date and you will be swiftly deported.
3. Businesses who hire illegals without the ID Card will face extreme fines and perhaps prison time for the executives responsible. Triple existing legal immigration levels to accommodate the economy.
4. Those with ID Cards must go to the “back of the line” when applying for a Z Visa.
5. All illegals convicted of a violent felony will be deported with no appeal, even those with an ID Card or a Z Visa.
6. Illegals will have a lifetime ban on welfare benefits. If you don’t have a job, you must return home.
7. End Sanctuary cities. Local law enforcement will be allowed to detain people not having an ID Card, and they will be turned over to the federal authorities for deportation. If a crime is committed without the ID Card, jail time will be served followed by deportation.
8. People from “suspect countries” must apply for Visas in their host country at the US Embassy. This provides local control of student visas.
9. All Muslims must renounce sharia law, terrorism, and political Islam. If they later violate this, they will be deported.
10. Islamic organizations that refuse to renounce and teach against political Islam will be reclassified as political organizations and subject to full scrutiny. This will end their protection as “religious” organizations.
11. Possible ideas: Fast-track citizenship for military service? Change teen labor laws so teenagers can mow lawns for less than minimum wage? End bilingual education, apply English immersion, make English the official language. End the practice of anchor babies.
Don,
Where in the Bible does it say that “the thoughts, and travelings, and even the exact street of residency, was decreed by God, from the foundation of the world” ? You are applying the doctrine of God’s sovereignty as it relates to SALVATION (”chosen in Him before the foundation of the world”) and turning into a Doris Day hodgepodge of “whatever will be, will be.” Stick to the issue at hand without bringing your fundamental confusion about the doctrines of grace into the discussion.
I fully recognize that you disagree with me on what the Bible clearly teaches regarding God’s sovereignty in salvation. What troubles me is that you can quote part of a verse (”from the foundation of the world”) that clearly says we are CHOSEN IN HIM before the foundation of the world, and totally MISS WHAT IT SAYS.
Ben
I agree with you, the border is the place of origination. I also agree that our laws have been transgressed, with a penalty due. Like you, I am acquainted with the concept of God’s amnesty. Perhaps we should follow Paul’s example with Onesimus; “If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account”! Now there is Christian grace. My transgressions on someone else’s account. I can relate to this concept!
I believe I would like to walk the isle!!!
You appear to have thought this out. This issue is not black and white to me.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Paul
I was not quoting the Word of God at this time.
I thought you would remember from a previous post of mine where this came from. Arthur Pink in Gleanings in Joshua, pg 338. And again Philip Melanchthon, as being quoted by Boettner in Predestination, pg 15. These men are the reformed authors used to give credence to this position.
I honestly am not being cantankerous, I have tried to follow the reformed position to a logical conclusion, and always end up in the same place; Contradiction!
If indeed man has no control over his comings and goings, (”even his thoughts”), how can it be anything else, BUT God’s will? The only confusion I have is best described by Martin Lloyd Jones when he states that nothing a man does can make a difference.
To the reformist, all of life is predetermined by God. Again, if man can do nothing outside of the predetermined will of God, then logic follows that he is where he is, by the will of God, including these Mexicans.
It is the reformed theologians that create the contradiction, not the Scriptures.
Contrary to your suggestion, this goes to the very heart of this imigration issue. It is exactly on point.
Here are two simple questions;
Is a man able to will against the will of God? (according to these authors, he is not.)
If he is not, what are they doing here if it is not God’s will that they be here?
Hugh Hewitt has some great points, thanks for listing them. One thing is certain, we need a policy that works.
Thanks for the engagement, discussion is at the heart of understanding.
Don
Don,
Am I missing something? What other solutions do you see except one of the 3?
Who is not for Christian grace here? But let me use your example: Should we then just forgive the killers? Should we just let the child molesters go free? Will you be willing to pay my parking ticket?
Also, do you really believe that people that hold the reformed position actually believe in what you call “the predetermined life” ? You are confusing God’s sovereignty with some kind of weird form of Determinism.
Just ask yourself a simple question? Why are you a Christian? And keep ask yourself why to any answer that you might have … what is your last answer?
Don, try not to mock the reformers, it is hard for anyone to listen when his position is being misrepresented and mocked. I got an advice from my geography professor and I still use it today: “Let people define themselves.”
Paul,
it seems to me that his solution is something like a Sol #2. The question I have is then how complicated would this thing be? Would it be almost impossible to become a citizen? Also, it seems that based on his proposal, illegal immigrants will never become full citizens with full rights ( #6)
As for #7 -> #10 we need to be very careful. Freedom of speech and equal opportunity are some of the values of this country. We still allow Nazis to hold their rallies in Jewish communities.
Ben
Perhaps you miss understand my position. I stated I believe a payment IS due. I do not misrepresent the reformed authors however. I give ample references for anyone to check these quotes. Scan the previous posts of several weeks ago and you will find numerous quotes and the appropriate references to support them. If you need them again, I will be happy to reprint them. No, I don’t suggest that a child molester, nor a murderer should go free, as I illustrated in a post of last week. Remember, and such were some of you! I think that was a ludicrous question. My point was that the laws are not always righteous, and as Christians we should seek first what God would want, prior to man. Nothing more-nothing less.
And finally, Should you be unable to pay a parking fine and I am able to help, just ask.
It would be my privilege to help you. Thats real.
I asked Paul, but let me extend the question to you also.
Is a man able to will against the will of God?
I do not mock the reformers, I question their logic, as they themselves have committed it to paper. To follow the reformed theology to its end, man is incapable of being responsible for his sins, for even the original sin was foreordained of God, according to the reformed authors.
Have a good day my brother.
Don
By the way, this is more like it fellas.
Don,
In my young life I spent too many nights talking about predestination and the doctrines of grace … I came to one conclusion: the only time people will change their opinions on the subject is when they read the Bible and don’t approach it with their assumptions.
It is not an easy subject. I understand why you would see a “contradiction”, but in reality is nothing but a seemingly contradiction, a paradox.
So, we’ll have to settle this in heaven someday …
In the meantime, please brother, give them the benefit of the doubt, don’t do some hasty generalizations.
And another thing, do not confuse God’s election in the matter of salvation with “whatever happens is by God’s election”. There is a difference between God electing people to be saved and allowing some things to happen. There is a difference between God sending Jesus on earth to die for us and allowing Satan to test Job.
Personally, I’m more than happy that my salvation depends completely on God. If it was 99.9999% God and 0.0001% I would be in trouble. At the same time, it is a very humbling experience: I can’t take credit for anything in the matters of my salvation, not even my “acceptance”. It is all, ALL God’s grace.
Ben
Agreed, we will settle in heaven. Please check out the quotes. These are by well respected men in the reformed camp. It is by their words, not mine, where the confusion originates. By their words you shall know them.
I’ll try reading the bible., thanks for the suggestion.
Ben
Some additional thoughts to process. First, thanks for dialogging.
When you asked me would I be willing to pay your fine, I recognize that this was stated in jest, but non the less it goes to the core of our Christianity. We should be willing to aid others as the Lord gives direction. I recall a woman at the Prayer Baptist Church in Westland, Sherry Lindley, whose husband was at the most charitable level, a moron. He left her with six children to fend for her family. A truly needy situation indeed. On a almost weekly basis, my wife and I would slip a hundred dollar bill into her purse unbeknown to her. When time came came for summer camp, her children’s cost was covered with spending money to boot. Throughout the years I have taken in six strays, ( children whose parents qualify for the same designation as the afore mentioned father ). I also think of the Coopers, in Flatrock, who went way beyond what meager aid I was able to do, and actually adopted four wayward, throw away children. This act of kindness certainly brought havoc into the Cooper household. These situations are not being mentioned here for any praise, other than that which belongs to God, for He is the one whom provided the means and opportunity to obey. These acts are being mentioned to illustrate this fact; this is what real charity is about, a willingness to be a servant to others. I’m motivated daily by the great truth that God reached way down, to this moron, and took me into His glorious family and made me a joint-heir with his son. All of these discussions are meaningless and void, in the absence of true Christian charity. In all of our engagements, let us both stay focused on the prize.
Finally Ben, I have read the Word of God through and through, now going on the 37th time. I have also read hundreds of other publications. Dr Vick taught us that a man can be wise and learned from this effort alone. “Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.” Psalms 119:11
The issue is not, the reading of the Word, but rather, not allowing the interpretation thereof to place a contradiction on the Word, or the author of the Word. It must all be congruent.
As I have stated in a previous post, it is often safest to find out what a verse cannot mean prior to assigning a meaning to it.
Ben, with all of our getting, let us get understanding.
Don
Don,
My brother, I’m not trying to irritate you … but it seems that I succeeded doing it.
I never suggested that you don’t read the Bible or you are not a mature Christian. All I was saying is that sometimes “our theology” is in the way of “God’s theology”. That is a problem I noticed with myself. I used to hate this doctrine of grace and predestination. But I tried for a period of a couple of months to at least allow this doctrine as an option and read and pray about it. It didn’t take long then … Now, if you already decided that there is a contradiction then … it’s kind of hard to give it a chance.
As I stated previously, answer for me this question: Why are you a Christian? o
Ben
You did not irritate me, nor even offend me. I like unlike you however, have never hated the doctrines of grace and predestination. I love them. Our definitions of them is what is at odds. I have entertained these doctrines for more than a couple of months, about 38 years now. I still come to the same conclusion. I will add this, the way most reformists validate what they believe is through a multitude of translations. This is why in our first go round I asked you; Which bible?
I will once again agree to let a thrice holy God resolve this one.
Thanks Don